Abstract
This paper analyses the inconsistency in the case law of the European Court of human Rights when applying Article 8, the right to respect for family life, of the European Convention of Human Rights in the immigration context. Even though Article 8 has permeated the area of immigration policy, critics claim that the case law has shown a number of extremely problematic developments. The main question of the paper is how the Court can be more consistent when determining a States’ compliance with Article 8. It examines whether the use of the same compliance test for all immigration cases could offer a more structured framework. The paper also explores additional adjustments in the application of Article 8 in order to improve the current development of the inconsistent case law.